Actually I have. In fact my younger brother is a recognized national expert in Rolex certification FWIW. And he doesn't base his decision on whether it's round, thin, small bezel and single button. Those are common and expected traits and not what makes a Rolex unique.

Right.

So just as a Movado watch that's round, thin, small bezel and single button looks nothing like a Rolex...

Why is it that all

Samsung tablets that are square, thin, small bezel end up looking just like an iPad.Surely there are other ways to make them look different.

Ok, so you're saying that in general, big orders are better than small orders. I can't argue with that as a general rule.

But you are also assuming that Apple pays enough to make their big orders a better alternative to Samsung than small orders from others. I don't think you have any evidence for that at tall, other than "in general, big orders are better than small orders".

But it all depends on how little Apple pays. And how much others are willing to pay.

You are still missing the point, probably because you have no idea how semiconductor production works. Take it from me I have a much better understanding of it, having worked in EDA before, and for the world-wide largest supplier of litho gear today.

If you have a whole fab full of streets of multi-million machines for producing chips, you want to have them fully booked 24/7, with minimal downtime, maximum efficiency. On every wafer you want to minimize defects, maximize yield, with as little surprises as possible, as every hour of downtime means you will lose revenue. A single wafer can easily have 200 to 300 chips on them, and a wafer scanner that is perfectly tuned for the reticle and process in production, running without any anomalies, can churn out around 200 to 250 wafers an hour. This should give you an impression how costly it is to shut down a wafer scanner for whatever reason: scheduled/unscheduled maintenance, re-calibration, diagnostics, or the most expensive of all: switching production jobs.

You see: when you are producing chips, all kinds of weird stuff happens to your wafer scanner. For example, lenses will warm up over time, and create optical aberrations that are specific to the pattern on the reticle you are imaging. Then, when you go to the next wafer, or the next production lot, the lens will cool down a little, again changing imaging performance. All of this affects defect rate and yield. Modern wafer scanners are full of sensors and actuators that can compensate for such effects, but the way you have to program the machine to use them to optimal effect is a learning process, and it is different for each reticle, and even different between machines of the same type, as imaging tolerances are close to nanometer scale these days. This means that the longer you are producing the same reticle on the same process technology, on the same machine, using the same wafer/resist stack, the more you learn how to control production, increasing yield and decreasing downtime. This process is continuous. I'm just giving one example of the kind of stuff you can expect making chips by the way, besides lens heating there are all kinds of scanner drift that may occur.

Now, say Apple wants 10 million A5 SoC's from Samsung. They first send engineers to Samsung and work with them to do trial runs, tweak the chip layout, the reticle, the process, etc. After that they will negotiate price tiers, for example $40 for the first million, $30 for the next, down to $10 for every chip after 5 million units. Samsung will commit to delivering the chips for the negotiated price, and they will commit to delivering at least x million of them each month, with volume ramping up during the first production runs. After that, it's up to Samsung to deliver. If they run into yield problems, its on them. If they have to shut down a whole production line to that could have been churning out easy stuff such as DRAM to fix the issue, its on them. If they fail to meet supply targets and have to compensate Apple in damages, its on them.

In other words: taking on new business is very risky, which is why any foundry will prefer large customers that place predictable orders, over small customers with different chips and unpredictable demand. In that regard, Apple is the perfect client: they need lots of the same IC's for a prolonged period, and the IC's they need are complex enough that you need a foundry such as Samsung, TSMC or GlobalFoundries to produce them in the first place, and cannot just make them yourself (such as many memory manufacturers do).

World-wide there are hardly any other customers that provide the same opportunities to foundries as Apple. Intel has its own fabs, AMD spun off its own foundry (GlobalFoundries), most memory manufactures run their own fabs (as DRAM is 'easy' to produce, as it's the same repetitive patterns all the time), and most other logic IC's don't have 2-year production runs, or erratic demand, lower complexity (hence lower margins), etc.

Maybe this helps you understand why no foundry will voluntarily turn down Apple's business. There's much more to it than just trading 1 big client for 5 small clients that add up to the same revenue.

1. You really must have a poor view of people if you really think they cannot tell the difference between an Apple product and a Samsung product.

I think others have already made the point before me, but I'll make it again. No: I don't think people cannot tell the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab, but when cleverly marketed as such, they will assume they are the same thing (a tablet), just from different manufacturers. This is exactly what Samsung is doing: trying to convince people that the Galaxy Tab is juuuuust like an iPad, except BETTER!

If there's anyone who has a poor view of people, it's you. Do you honestly think the average Joe will go into a store to buy a tablet that 'runs iOS applications'?

Quote:

2. Another example. Years ago Apple (an it fanboys) laughed at the idea of wireless syncing of the Zune and Zune HD to a computer. They went so far as to claim it would eat battery life, it was slower than a cable connection, yada yada. YET, now Apple is including (ie COPYING) this in iOS 5 claiming it to be WIZ-BANG wonderful.

I fail to say how any of this relates to anything I said, but let me add that first of all neither me, anyone I know, nor Apple have ever made any statement as to why iOS didn't include wireless sync, and second of all, what iOS 5 will bring is not 'WiFi sync', it's a system-wide, cross-device, application-specific cloud syncing service that is completely transparent to the user. That's a few steps beyond using WiFi to move stuff to and from your phone instead of a cable. Knowing that, even you should be able to figure out why iOS didn't have WiFi sync before.

I think others have already made the point before me, but I'll make it again. No: I don't think people cannot tell the difference between an iPad and a Galaxy Tab, but when cleverly marketed as such, they will assume they are the same thing (a tablet), just from different manufacturers. This is exactly what Samsung is doing: trying to convince people that the Galaxy Tab is juuuuust like an iPad, except BETTER!

If there's anyone who has a poor view of people, it's you. Do you honestly think the average Joe will go into a store to buy a tablet that 'runs iOS applications'?

I've never been involved in these Apple vs. Samsung arguments prior to this thread. I honestly wasn't sure what to think. Then I saw the ads for the new GT 10.1. No mention of Android. That changed my mind. It became blatantly obvious to me that Samsung was purposely doing everything they could to deceive the public into believing that the GT was the same as the iPad... but better.

I've never been involved in these Apple vs. Samsung arguments prior to this thread. I honestly wasn't sure what to think. Then I saw the ads for the new GT 10.1. No mention of Android. That changed my mind. It became blatantly obvious to me that Samsung was purposely doing everything they could to deceive the public into believing that the GT was the same as the iPad... but better.

Walks like a duck etc... the Samsung business plan.

Detail that please. Also they aren't required to mention Android. And considering they show the UI off it is impossible to confuse with an iPad.

Also "same but better" is a common marketing technique.

Also the injunction on the tab in Germany isn't based on it looking like any existing Apple product.

I've never been involved in these Apple vs. Samsung arguments prior to this thread. I honestly wasn't sure what to think. Then I saw the ads for the new GT 10.1. No mention of Android. That changed my mind. It became blatantly obvious to me that Samsung was purposely doing everything they could to deceive the public into believing that the GT was the same as the iPad... but better.

Walks like a duck etc... the Samsung business plan.

What 's wrong with that as a marketing plan? FIOS sends me literature telling me they can replace my current phone/cable/data plan with a better and faster service. Isn't that same as my cable provider, but better? DirectTV does the same type of comparison, just as dependable as cable service, but at a better price with more features. How many car commercials have you seen where "fill in the blank" is as tough/powerful/luxurious as "another FITB" but with better fuel economy, or for "thousands less". A "better" fill-in-the-blank. Do they ever go on to say,"but we use vinyl door panels rather than leather" or "we don't offer assisted parking or 8-way power seats" or "our warranty is only 3 years rather than their 5". Of course not!

Almost every consumer product has a faster, cleaner, whiter, slimmer, lighter, better-tasting than x's competitor.

The whole idea of advertising is to get you to consider their product or program or belief. When someone sees an iPad commercial they probably get the idea that you can load or switch applications in a the space of a heartbeat, and web searches are completed in a split-second. Fly from project to project as fast as you can move your fingers. Is that being somewhat deceptive too, or just the accepted way advertising is done? Advertising that yours is as good, but at a lower price, or better at the same low price is pretty darn normal.

It's up to the buyer to decide if the product really is as good or better. The advertising is just the foot in the door. As it's always been.

Nobody here has any evidence, anecdotal or not, that consumers are mistaking the Galaxy tab for iPads. They merely allege that it may be happening. Allegations are not evidence.

Sorry. When I saw somebody claim to have evidence, I believed him. I thought he'd cite an article about, say, Best Buy getting excessive returns, and reporting that many (Some? One?) customers claimed that they were fooled. But no.

Nothing. No evidence whatsoever. Not anecdotal, not scientific, not polls, not focus groups. Nothing except "I imagine that it might be happening".

Sorry - I left the courtroom for a moment so I missed the start of your cross-examination. I used the term "anecdotal" in its precise sense:

adjective (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research

because that is what I meant. I have heard of people having such experiences, here, on other sites and by word of mouth. That is anecdotal. It is not definitive and you are under no obligation to believe it, and under no pressure to be offended by it. It also is not the same as imagining that it might be happening. I do not have any peer-reviewed studies to cite for you, data from Best Buy's returns department, or any other more reliable information that might bridge the gap between anecdotal and verified.

Feel free to read my posts or ignore them, but it would be nice if you avoided distorting them, whether through misunderstanding English or to suit your own perceptions, since that doesn't help the discussion in the long run.

apple calls samsung out for ripping off it style for mobile devices and now samsung suddenly "remembers" all these awesome patents and technologies they own and didn't think about it before apple called them out.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see anything before that post suggesting he wasn't honest or sincere. Besides his mildly amusing "blah, blah's" I've haven't had any big issues with him. Perhaps others have and I hadn't noticed.

I'm sorry, but I still don't see anything before that post suggesting he wasn't honest or sincere. Besides his mildly amusing "blah, blah's" I've haven't had any big issues with him. Perhaps others have and I hadn't noticed.

Quite right, you did close the thread Island Hermit. Done and out.

His response was to Muppetry who said:
"Look at it this way - they keep the rest of us honest. Or try to, anyway."

I would dance with JOY knowing others cannot compete with my products. Because I know others and I would prefer a product that is well built, reliable and runs the better OS versus a product that looks similar, but I know is inferior in build quality (just pick the damned thing up) and runs a shoddy OS.

People are not going to buy a shoddily built knock off and then come to the conclusion that Apple's products are also poor products. That is a complete fallacy of logic. You should be ashamed trying to pass that off as a reasonable argument.

The reality is that people do buy knock-offs and shoddy products thinking they are going to get the real thing, or something just as good, on the cheap. Don't believe me?

Then why do people use false/misleading advertising? Why do people make knock-offs? Why do they make cheap products that imitate quality items? Why?

Because people are greedy, wanting something for nothing. Because people are careless and don't pay attention to what they buy. Because people make mistakes. And, sometimes, they will blame the quality manufacturer for their experience.

Because the people who make knock-offs can and do make lots of money, with little effort and little legal risk by copying quality products and (essentially) stealing your money by selling crap.

The problem with your reasoning is that most people (vast majority of people) are not as well informed about technology products as the average AI reader. Most are not even as intelligent, most likely, yet you appear to react as if they are when you put down another's opinion. You give them way too much credit.

now that apple is moving away from their manufacturing, and apple being their biggest buyer, they want to try to take them for as much as they can before they have to post the rather grim news of major lost business.

if they personally built it? hell to the yes (I think as I'm unaware how the low works in conjunction to that but they should be able to)

Where is this display? Is it supplied by Samsung? Are the back wall graphics also supplied by Samsung, assuming that any of the display comes direct from them, or are those elements a part of the retailers decor (assuming it's a retailer)?

Did the company producing the graphics receive the proper releases before creating them? And if all the elements were contracted by Samsung, did they have releases to use each of the logos for marketing purposes?

Where is this display? Is it supplied by Samsung? Are the back wall graphics also supplied by Samsung, assuming that any of the display comes direct from them, or are those elements a part of the retailers decor (assuming it's a retailer)?

Did the company producing the graphics receive the proper releases before creating them? And if all the elements were contracted by Samsung, did they have releases to use each of the logos for marketing purposes?

Not nearly enough know to make any judgement.

yea all that is necessary to form an opinion on...I highly doubt that's a Samsung approved display, but if it is, let whatever comes to them come (for that)

What never fails to amaze me is: why do perfectly reasonably-sounding people waste their time, energy, brain cells, and logic responding to these silly trolls?

Ugh.

Let's see - you side with Apple and sound off against their competitors on 95% of the issues. Some of us support Apple when it makes sense, and point out flaws in pro-Apple arguments that we see. Who are the reasonably sounding people here?

To repeat, I love my wife but her farts still stink.

Furthermore, bad arguments are bad arguments. And this thread has more of those than most other threads. Steve Jobs' genius will not reflect on you no matter how much you kiss Apple's butt.

Before iPhone everybody acts as though they are king of mobile phones. They don't even innovate, buggie, function like shit and they act like kings of devices! Then came an underdog. Nearly everyone in the industry talks bad about this underdog. Calling by name and bark bark bark! Then one fine day all the users started buyiing this underdog like no day and nite! Sunddenky this underdog becomes top dog! And every shit hole started copying like they own a piece of the nderdog's innovation. So you go figure.

Yup that's a good summary of the past five years. The arrogance of telcos and mobile phone makers is most disturbing. But now they are reaping what they sow.

Let's see - you side with Apple and sound off against their competitors on 95% of the issues. Some of us support Apple when it makes sense, and point out flaws in pro-Apple arguments that we see. Who are the reasonably sounding people here?

To repeat, I love my wife but her farts still stink.

Furthermore, bad arguments are bad arguments. And this thread has more of those than most other threads. Steve Jobs' genius will not reflect on you no matter how much you kiss Apple's butt.

The discussion we had about Timex and Rolex got me thinking further about premium brands in general. I can't imagine any scenario where Lexus would acknowledge any Hyundai as being a copy of one of their vehicles.

Sorry... The Korean tradition is to copy what works and make it as cheap possible, case in point. The Hyundai Equus.. When i first saw this car in South Korea I could not believe that they could get away with such a thing. But they did. I guess it's because Lexus did not patent it's design.

Apple did receive protection for it's design.

Imagine Samsung is your biggest supplier providing processors, memory and displays for your new product. In very short order your supplier copies your design to the point that in certain ways it becomes nearly indistinguishable from your own. From the case to the touchwiz operating system right down to the box it ships in. Then they go on to sell them by the boat load. Anyone that can't see the case here is blind.

For certain without the iPhone and iPad there would be no Galaxy at all.

If patent laws and litigation can not address this case for what it is then you may as well go out and copy what ever you want.

Samsung has no choice but to step up the fight. However I believe that they are going to take a well deserved beating on this one.